Share this

Suppose that instead of lashing out at Israel for its continued settlement activity in predominantly Jewish sections of East Jerusalem and following that by treating its visiting prime minister like an international leper, the Obama Administration had weighed in with a statement along the following lines:

As has every U.S. president since 1967, the United States deplores Israel's continued settlement activity as
an obstacle to peace and, according to many authorities, illegal under international law. At the same time, the status of Jerusalem is one of the four "final status" issues to be adjudicated at the negotiating table, along with borders, settlements and refugees. In this respect, the United States wishes to assure both parties that it will accord no weight whatsoever to any unilateral steps taken with respect to the final status issues by either party outside of the negotiating process. We urge both parties to return to the negotiating table immediately for the resumption of face-to-face talks.

This approach would have been preferable to the Administration's one-track scolding of Israel because it would have applied pressure on the Palestinians to negotiate directly as well as the Israelis to clean up their act. It might also have exposed what clearly is shaping up as a major obstacle to negotiating progress: a disillusionment on both sides with the so-called "two state solution" to the dispute, a resolution purportedly embraced by all relevant actors.

But the hardened political arteries that come with old age, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and a continuing reputation for corrupt disdain for the people they purport to govern have placed the PA and its leadership in a position where it must do brilliantly at the negotiating table or face popular charges of treason on the back of incompetence. At the same time, the PA is familiar enough with Israeli positions to know it will never achieve more than a symbolic right to return 1948 refugees to their former Israeli towns and villages, a highly circumscribed position in Jerusalem, and sharp limits on the size, weaponry and positioning of their military forces - something most independent states would regard as an insult.

The Israeli taste for a one-state solution - still a minority position - reflects a growing conviction that the Palestinians will never accept a Jewish state in the region, and, as events following the Gaza pullout made clear - will treat every Israeli concession as an act of weakness to be met with a renewed armed conflict to once again challenge Israel's right to exist.

One must also take cognizance of the event which, in the near future, dwarfs all others, Iran's assumed development of nuclear weapons.Not very long ago, conservative Sunni regimes like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believed the U.S. was up to the task of checking such weapons, a step for which they would bring themselves into reconciliation with Israel, clearly a far lesser threat to regional stability. But the weak U.S. administration response to Iran thus far is shaking the entire area to its foundation. That is not a situation that spanking Israel is likely to correct.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.